Sspx Rejects Pope's Call To Rejoin Rome

[mortify]

The sad irony is had it not been for the SSPX, there would have been no indult, and who knows what would have happened to the Church's traditional form of woship.

Edited July 1, 2008 by mortify

[Dave]

[quote name='XIX' post='1588304' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:10 PM']Building your own society against the wishes of the Pope is not okay.
I'll read it, but nobody forced the SSPX to go out and form their own society. The Church probably could have handled it better, but it was ultimately the SSPX's decision. The Church wasn't doing enough to crack down on liberalism? Maybe they could have done more. But that's motivation for splintering off? I'm sorry, I can't buy that. The SSPX takes the lion's share of the blame here. A questionable interpretation of V2 is not nearly as grevious as splintering off.[/quote]

[quote]The JP2 told Lefebvre not to found the SSPX, or else he would be excommunicated.
Lefebvre founded the SSPX anyway.
Lefebvre was excommunicated.[/quote]

The SSPX had already been in existence for several years at the time of Archbishop Lefebvre's illicit consecration of 4 bishops. Lefebvre was never told not to found the society but rather not to ordain bishops for it unless he had the Holy Father's permission first.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='mortify' post='1588346' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:04 PM']The sad irony is had it not been for the SSPX, there would have been no indult, and who knows what would have happened to the Church's traditional form of woship.[/quote]
exactly why I say that in the end, the historical analysis will not include any of this polemical angry tirades against the SSPX but instead recognize the tremendous errors on both sides, and even probably recognize the courage it took for Lefebvre to take a stand whilest also saying he may have gone too far. I have every confidence that the excommunication against him will be lifted and all the tirading I see against him and the other bishops is far harsher than anything Rome actually says about them.

when they're a personal prelature with all the excommunications lifted, all the tirades against Lefebvre and all that are going to seem pretty silly. I'm not saying Lefebvre didn't make a mistake, I'm saying both sides made many mistakes and Rome herself will likely recognize that in the end... Ratzinger has always expressed regret that he was unable to stop the schism.

[kafka]

[quote name='Deo Iuvente' post='1587497' date='Jun 30 2008, 09:54 PM']True, they excommunicated themselves, But to say that they exalted themselves ABOVE the magisterium seems to much to me. At the time, all you could see around you was an apparent worldwide apostasy of the church. I know you don't understand, and I don;t expect you too, but think of it this way: Imagine you wake up, and find out that the holy father is participating in pagan ceremonies, and that such ceremonies are introduced in mass worldwide. Imagine, that priests are leaving the clerical state, nuns are leaving, priests are spouting heresy from the pulpit, churches are being desecrated by Catholics, etc. That's how things were in the aftermath if Vatican II. Their decision was wrong, but you still must understand the context of it.They were afraid that if they didn't do anything, the Catholic faith would be lost in the west to mass heresy. Anyway, even Fr. Feeney got his excommunications conditionally removed. Could not the same happen for the SSPX?

which, as I understand it was'nt a doctrinal council and declared no new dogmas. Disagreeing with non-doctrinal decisions of the council does'nt make you a heretic. And there are plenty of people who are known for disagreeing with the church, and yet have no discipline imposed on them. Politicians who continue to go to communion unchastised for example, or bishops who refuse to implement Redmptionis Sacramentum, like H.E. Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles. It's true, there are those within the ranks of the SSPX that teach errors that go unchecked, but the same is true for those in communion with Rome.
They say it is valid, licit, but in it's current state, theologically impoverished, and does not often easily display the Catholic faith. That's my own position, and I support the Novus Ordo, though not in it's current state. Let's all pray for a reform of the liturgy.
Proof that they denied every single thing a pope has said since Vatican II? That also, doesn't make you a heretic, since no pope since then has defined new dogma. There are plenty of O'Learies, Chittisters, and others who do the same thing, and yet get no flack for it.
Sorry, I don't think you understand their position. They reject two ideas that came from the council, neither of which are defined dogmas of the church. Also, you know good and welll that at the time, the former missal was effectively abrogated, and that individual bishops refused to give permission after JPII allowed indult masses with Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.
Sorry, the Nicolatians were gnostic docetists. They were also named after another Nicholas, not he who was one of the fist seven deacons of the church. I'm also very sorry that I don't get the parable between sexual promiscuity and attachment to Catholic Dogma. The SSPX only differed doctrinally from the post-conciliar church on the issues of religious freedom, and ecumenism. A better parallel would be the Protestant Reformation.

Because, it's totally untrue that there were prelates and persons involved with the council who began to teach heresy, or be disobedient to the will of the concillium. Yeah, that never happened. (There was no dutch catechism, female altar servers and communion in the hand, as well as the use of several Eucharistic prayers, all things condemned by Paul VI and the concilium. Mons.Annibale Bugninni, and Fr. Marini never existed.) And there definitely are no people who do the same today. (Arch.Bp. Mario Marini, Sister Chittister, and Voice of the Faithful don't exist.)
Isn't this only another form of post hoc ergo, propter hoc? You just said " The SSPX has bad fruits, and that's their fault, but that bad fruits that came after the council don't have anything to do with it!" There are rose-colored glasses on both side, but sitting pretty and pretending that Vatican II was a perfect council, free of any fault or disagreement that brought about a great and glorious springtime of the church, ignores the disobedience that came about as a result of principles behind the council. And I'm sure it's blatantly obvious that the New mass does have at least some errors, though they be minor.

But you know that Vatican II said to preserver the use of Latin and chant as the norm. And by saying there should be only one form of the mass, aren't you going against the will of the current pontiff, who says in SP that there are two forms of the Roman Rite?[/quote]
O.k. first off you dont have a good understanding of the Sacred Magisterium which is common among Catholics nowdays and this isnt the time or place to give you a lesson.

Second, the Nicolatians I was referring to is different from the Gnostic sect you are referring to.

Third, Vatican was indeed an ecumenical council and it is the opinion of more than a few theologians that yes some of the documents do indeed express infallible teachings.

Fourth, my opinion about the Mass and Liturgy, is based on my understanding of the life of the Church. Yes at this time their are two forms of the Roman Rite, and more than a few forms of the Eastern Rite. To a great extent this is a temporal decision of the Magisterium and not infallible (though the very core of the Mass is infallible, namely the words of Consencration.) So yes I may hold my own opinion and disagree with a non-infallible temporal decision of the Magisterium. I was merely stating something that in my humble opinion will occur in the short distance of the future.

"but sitting pretty and pretending that Vatican II was a perfect council, free of any fault or disagreement that brought about a great and glorious springtime of the church, ignores the disobedience that came about as a result of principles behind the council."

you are implicitly denying the teaching authority of VII. The disobedience DID NOT come from the principles of the council it came from the personal choices of the Faithful made up of both clergy and laity. Yes perhaps it wasnt a perfect council in my opinion it emphasised the laity too much, yet the influence of secular society was and still is a great factor in the downfall of the Church. It has been predicted in Sacred Scripture.

Fifth, you act like I have no understanding of the state of the Church and the World and I find that offensive. You have no idea what things I have discovered, and you have no idea where I've been and what insights I have discovered in my life. Your understanding of the Church and Faith is weak, and your charity and mercy is lacking.

Last you said, "I'm also very sorry that I don't get the parable between sexual promiscuity and attachment to Catholic Dogma."

Saint Augustine taught and admitted that discovering Truth is more joyful than sexual pleasure. SSPX and other Trad groups are guilty of being attached to their own idea of the Faith. And it gives them a twisted joy as a man who gets a twisted joy out of lust.

Edited July 2, 2008 by kafka

[kafka]

oh and Deo Iuvente I just looked at your profile. You are a mere teenager. I cant believe you have the gall and presumption to presumably correct and teach a 29 year old who knows a whole lot more than you and has seen a whole lot more than you. Maybe you need to play a little sports and take a girl on a date.

[abercius24]

My Dear Friend Apotheoun, we need to continue this discussion in another thread for the sake of those who may be bothered by our wanderings.

[Jaime]

[quote name='mortify' post='1588346' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:04 PM']The sad irony is had it not been for the SSPX, there would have been no indult, and who knows what would have happened to the Church's traditional form of woship.[/quote]

Ridiculous. The HOLY FATHER succumbed to the wishes of an excommunicated group? Dumb dumb dumb. All of the Traditions of the Church are alive and well.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1588404' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:08 PM']exactly why I say that in the end, the historical analysis will not include any of this polemical angry tirades against the SSPX but instead recognize the tremendous errors on both sides, and even probably recognize the courage it took for Lefebvre to take a stand whilest also saying he may have gone too far. I have every confidence that the excommunication against him will be lifted and all the tirading I see against him and the other bishops is far harsher than anything Rome actually says about them.

when they're a personal prelature with all the excommunications lifted, all the tirades against Lefebvre and all that are going to seem pretty silly. I'm not saying Lefebvre didn't make a mistake, I'm saying both sides made many mistakes and Rome herself will likely recognize that in the end... Ratzinger has always expressed regret that he was unable to stop the schism.[/quote]


Then you're saying that the excommunication was wrong. You are romanticizing SSPX and showing absolute ignorance. They defied the Holy Father. Period end of statement.

So who made the mistake Al? Remember who the Prefect of the CDF in 1988? Who was the appointed defender of the Faith? Was he the one who made Romes mistakes?

no

no one in Rome made mistakes

[abercius24]

The continuing debate on the value of Rabbinic Judaism can be found here:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=82166"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=82166[/url]

[mortify]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1588710' date='Jul 1 2008, 09:23 PM']Ridiculous. The HOLY FATHER succumbed to the wishes of an excommunicated group? Dumb dumb dumb. All of the Traditions of the Church are alive and well.[/quote]

Edit: I left a response to this but I'm going to double check some sources.

Edited July 2, 2008 by mortify

[Jaime]

[quote name='mortify' post='1588753' date='Jul 1 2008, 11:08 PM']Edit: I left a response to this but I'm going to double check some sources.[/quote]


Mortify you can check all the sources you want. The Holy Father has ALWAYS been a fan of the TLM. And it wasn't their views on the latin mass that caused schism.

You guys are making the SSPX out to be martyrs. Schismatics are not martyrs.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1588782' date='Jul 1 2008, 10:29 PM']Schismatics are not martyrs.[/quote]

The SSPX are not schismatics.

"The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics."

+Cardinal Castrillón